Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Alistar7
"...let's just keep it to ourselves though."
what does that mean?
Do I flaunt my sexuality in front of you? No?...then please do me the same common courtesy. I think that if gays weren't as flamboyant trying to make everything a gay thing, then heterosexuals and homophobes would pretty much let them be.
That's not the case though, ever see the number of rainbow colored bumper stickers, gay and proud T-Shirts, gay awareness week, gay parades....Enough already, you are gay, big whooptidoodah, get way over it already...
I don't wear T-shirts claiming my affinity for eating at the Y, so why remind me of what you like to do behind closed doors?
Originally posted by: Nitemare
You don't see me throwing on solid colored clothing and marching down main street carrying straight and proud signs, so they can do their own thing and we can do our own thing and live in harmony...
I personally view homosexuality as I do suicide -- the government should protect you from yourself, which in turn, protects itself. You can't have everyone turn gay or the population would decline severely I would imagine.. Just as you couldn't encourage everyone to go off and kill themselves or else the country wouldn't last very long.
Originally posted by: MadRat
Homosexuality is roughly equivalent in numbers to the number of people affected by other disabilities.
Does that mean people with disabilities should have the protection from the ADA removed because their problems are merely "natural"?
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
An unmarried man and woman have the option to marry. Why shouldn't gays be allowed the same option? I also suppose that being right-handed is normal and that southpaws like me are disabled. By many estimates I've seen, the proportion of lefthanders and gays are about the same so you can't decide what is normal by a head count and not everything that varies from the statistical majority is a disability.
Originally posted by: Vic
My GF and I have been living together, unmarried, for 5 years (no common law in OR or WA). I do not require governmental nor insitutional religious sanction for my relationships. I have no respect for anyone, straight or gay, who says that they need that sanction in order to have a loving long-term relationship. Hey, and guess what? every year I do our taxes and every year, if we had been married, we would have paid more. Lots more.
Originally posted by: tkotitan2
If you watched the factor tonight, his poll question at the end was "should gay marriage be legalized?."
I sent bill an email, but i'm curious what you think. here's what I said.
Bill,
The phrase "Gay marriage" is a contradictory statement. In Vermont we allow for tax breaks with "Civil Unions" since marriage is attached to religious institutions. In fact, most people don't know that our state passed a law stating that "Marriage" is defined between a man and a woman. I think the legality of a civil union is justified, however the extreme opinions I have heard arise from this controvesial topic reveal a scary truth which is that many people want being gay to be considered normal behavior. It is not the norm, and our children need to be taught that.
I'm curious to know what other people think. Frankly, I think marriage should be taken out of the lawbooks entirely, and we should just have a system where individuals can claim dependents for tax breaks. Keep sexual preference out of the law books unless we're talking molestation or rape. This was a very dividing issue in VT 4 years ago, i basically don't think that the governement should give anyone a break based on sexuality, and that would keep gays who want "marriage" away from churches and disgust people with public displays that only offend people and confuse children.
Originally posted by: MadRat
If homosexuality is natural and should be considered normal, then disabilities should be considered normal, too. Neither group would then get any special consideration. As it is now the homosexuals get special consideration in some states to be considered as domestic unions, just as if it was an unmarried man and woman in a domestic union.